Delete BIM Plan

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: permanence of deletion, that it cannot be undone, that a repeat call returns 404, and that failures return an error payload with HTTP status. This goes beyond the annotations and fully discloses the operational characteristics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded and every sentence contributes useful information, but there is some redundancy: "Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling" and "id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first" convey the same point. Similarly, "Permanently removes the BIM plan" and "This cannot be undone" overlap. Still, it remains well-structured and not overly verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple delete operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: the operation, prerequisites (resolving id), permanence, repeat-call behavior, error handling, required parameters, and API endpoint. This gives the agent a complete picture for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for both parameters with clear descriptions, but the description adds extra meaning for id: it must identify an existing parent record and should be resolved via a list/show tool. Project_id is not given additional context beyond the schema, but the schema already defines it as a unique project identifier. The extra id guidance justifies a score above the baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a clear verb+resource statement: "Delete a BIM Plan from the system." This unambiguously identifies the action and target, and the mention of the BIM Plan (vs. BIM File, BIM Model, etc.) helps differentiate it from sibling delete tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance: "Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling" and "resolve it with the matching list tool first." It also clarifies id needs to identify an existing parent record, giving the agent a clear precondition. The error status breakdown (401, 403, 404) further helps the agent understand when to use this vs. alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.